1200 Architects And Engineers

page: 26
99
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



It's not like the floors were particularly strong, they were a few inches of lightweight concrete.


Lightweight concrete, are you joking? I've heard truthers accused of neglecting the force of the plane impact, but neglecting the building's structure is absurd. The only thing wrong with the building was the asbestos caused by poor maintenance, the building itself was capable of withstanding plane impacts and withstood the plane impact on 9/11, only collapsing an hour afterwards, so your attempt to prove the building is "lightweight" concrete is inaccurate, as the building survived many explosive blasts on that day.




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Yeah, Anders Björkman through Heiwa Co. is offering 10,000 euros to anyone who can build a model based on Bazant's paper that can demonstrate how a total collapse would be possible.

heiwaco.tripod.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
your attempt to prove the building is "lightweight" concrete is inaccurate, as the building survived many explosive blasts on that day.

I don't know what your problem is with this, because that's how the towers were designed. The floors were truss structures between the outer wall and the core, they had a thin gauge of corrugated plate over them, which was then filled in with a few inches of a lightweight concrete mix.

This is the truth, and I'm sorry if you think i'm trying to twist anything but I am not. Any source will tell you this, official or unofficial. It's just the way they were designed and built.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yeah, Anders Björkman through Heiwa Co. is offering 10,000 euros to anyone who can build a model based on Bazant's paper that can demonstrate how a total collapse would be possible.

Kent Hovind offers prizes for proving evolution too. Why it's almost as if the people who set up these awards also control the circumstances so that no matter what occured they will never give away the prize.

PS. A long discussion about the type of building to be constructed was discussed at JREF, you might consider reading it if you really want to see how bad Heiwa can be.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yeah, Anders Björkman through Heiwa Co. is offering 10,000 euros to anyone who can build a model based on Bazant's paper that can demonstrate how a total collapse would be possible.

Kent Hovind offers prizes for proving evolution too. Why it's almost as if the people who set up these awards also control the circumstances so that no matter what occured they will never give away the prize.

PS. A long discussion about the type of building to be constructed was discussed at JREF, you might consider reading it if you really want to see how bad Heiwa can be.


They look pretty clear to me.

PS. you might want to consider reading over the AE911 publications on the WTC's construction characteristics.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
And Bazant was just demonstrated to be utterly wrong in his assumptions that this could destroy the entire building because as each impact occurs, it must necessarily collapse one floor of the pile driver itself until there is no more collapse energy available.

This would, in a perfect pancake scenario, run out of steam 12 floors beneath the impact point.[

You're ignoring acceleration due to gravity after the first collapse. Even if every collapse destroyed a floor of both blocks, there is then a 24 foot drop where the parts will be accelerated. The mass doesn't diminish, so the energy doesn't either (except for impacts).

Bazant is an extremely well respected, highly cited scientist. These papers were published in an extremely well respected, widely read journal. You'll have to do a little better than "this guy on the internet says he's wrong".


Further, no matter how you slice it, constant acceleration through the path of most resistance would never occur.

I guess you'll have to explain to me how this works then:



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
They look pretty clear to me.

PS. you might want to consider reading over the AE911 publications on the WTC's construction characteristics.

I've read them, I don't know why you seem to think you don't have to actually answer any questions here instead of just making silly claims like the 'energy would run out'. Where do you think the energy comes from in the first place? Does gravity only accelerate objects up to a certain speed or something?

Seriously, stop relying on other sources that you can't fully explain and discuss with me your opinions, explain to me why you think that such a thing is impossible and where you think the energy from gravity goes.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
You're ignoring acceleration due to gravity after the first collapse. Even if every collapse destroyed a floor of both blocks, there is then a 24 foot drop where the parts will be accelerated. The mass doesn't diminish, so the energy doesn't either (except for impacts).

Bazant is an extremely well respected, highly cited scientist. These papers were published in an extremely well respected, widely read journal. You'll have to do a little better than "this guy on the internet says he's wrong".


You'll have to do a little better than saying he is right simply because he is "extremely well respected".

So are the 1300 engineers that agree with me.


I guess you'll have to explain to me how this works then:


No problem.

See where the collapse point starts? - in the middle. This is because, as Chandler clearly demonstrates, for each lower floor destroyed, an upper floor is also consumed in the process. This is where the kinetic energy to keep the collapse going comes from.

Further, its BLATANTLY CLEAR just by eyeballing it that the building undergoes deceleration in its collapse as the collapse progresses.


edit on 16-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You'll have to do a little better than saying he is right simply because he is "extremely well respected".

That's not what I said, so when you've read the paper and figured out how exactly he's wrong please detail it.


So are the 1300 engineers that agree with me.

There are not 1300 engineers in ae911truth. Please do not lie about member counts. The number of structural engineers is extremely low, and as far as I am aware none have published papers in any well known journals about this?


No problem.

See where the collapse point starts? - in the middle. This is because, as Chandler clearly demonstrates, for each lower floor destroyed, an upper floor is also consumed in the process. This is where the kinetic energy to keep the collapse going comes from.

Kinetic energy comes from destroying floors? But didn't you just say that no structure can collapse into the path of most resistance?

These seem to be contradictions, if the energy comes from destroying floors, what consumes the energy? Where does gravitational energy come in to this?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
You're ignoring acceleration due to gravity after the first collapse. Even if every collapse destroyed a floor of both blocks, there is then a 24 foot drop where the parts will be accelerated. The mass doesn't diminish, so the energy doesn't either (except for impacts).

This doesn't make sense to me, where did the 24 foot drop come from? Are you now a truther implying that the floors had all the steel removed at once so the top section could be accelerated for 24 foot until impacting an intact floor?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
There are not 1300 engineers in ae911truth. Please do not lie about member counts. The number of structural engineers is extremely low, and as far as I am aware none have published papers in any well known journals about this?


1300 engineers have reviewed the published work and have formally agreed with the assessments published. Each of these engineers has had their credentials verified. You can see a list of most of them here:
www.patriotsquestion911.com...


Kinetic energy comes from destroying floors? But didn't you just say that no structure can collapse into the path of most resistance?

These seem to be contradictions, if the energy comes from destroying floors, what consumes the energy? Where does gravitational energy come in to this?


There is no contradiction.

As each lower floor gets "hammered" by the upper pancaking floor. As Newton's laws clearly demonstrate, for each action there must be an equal but opposite reaction, causing part of the upper "pile driver" to collapse as well.

This collapse of the pile driver floor is where the kinetic energy to keep the collapse sequence going comes from.

If the demolition engineers in the video had pushed off the second from the top floor of the building instead of the middle, the collapse would have stalled before the whole building was demolished.


edit on 16-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Here is a perfect example of Newton's laws in motion.

We can see with total clarity what happens when the support columns are not destroyed in the middle.

In this case, the support columns at the base of the building were removed.


It doesn't matter if you take out the supports at the bottom or the top, either way the building will NOT completely demolish itself.

ONLY if the building is collapsed in the middle, and ONLY if supports are removed at precisely the same time across the entire middle floor, and ONLY if the building is uniform in strength will total destruction of the building ensue.

Even given all of that - there will be DECELERATION as this occurs.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Why is it that I've had to ask you to re read previous posts of mine in two threads now? It's not that hard to spend the time to understand what I'm actually arguing, instead of just assuming i'm arguing against you at all times.


If you're ever not arguing against me, it's not that hard to preface what you're saying with "I agree." I haven't seen where you have been trying to reach an agreement. All I've seen is you coming on here to antagonize what I say personally.

I was showing exactly what kind of comparison the Windsor Tower makes to the WTC Towers, and then you come on here acting like it is a valid comparison and the WTC Towers suffered worse fires and had a weaker structure somehow. Then you start arguing how the structures are too different to be directly compared. Well then why did you jump my case in the first place? Are you still trying to say those fires and structures are comparable or what?



Here is an important post to read. That is why I pointed out the fact that any comparison made would need to take into account these factors.


But not take into account the massive difference in the severity of the fires and the cross-sections of the steel that was failed?

If you do think those things are important, why didn't you mention them to Gen too? Like I said, you're only interested in antagonizing me.


This is why you're ignoring these factors in trying to compare the two buildings


I'm not ignoring them, I'm putting them in their place. They do NOT excuse the failed steel for being much smaller and easier to heat, or the fires being much, much more severe in the Windsor Tower, yet it not being leveled anyway. That building burned for 24 hours. Yet you don't bring up ANY of these things. Your silence on THOSE factors speaks volumes to your extreme bias.


What exactly is it you want NIST to do?


Reproduce their failure mechanism with a single truss/perimeter column set up. They already made such a model in their labs and put fire to it for their calibration of their computer simulations. Nothing even remotely resembling their hypothesis occurred. I imagine that's why they never bothered to try and test it again later. By saying this test was for calibrating their computer simulations they excused themselves from having to explain why they were unable to validate their theory, and had to resort to manipulating computer simulations instead. And then completely ignoring the other 99% of the collapses. What part of that do you think demonstrates these are competent scientists?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Go down to pages 54-72 of the PDS document and be sure to go through it all on what happened prior to collapse. It was observed, and recorded.


What you are looking at could be the result of incendiaries or some other failure mechanism or just about anything. The PROOF that this is showing NIST's hypothesized failure mechanism, is non-existent. They never showed that their failure mechanism was possible in the first place. They just said it was and that it caused what happened. You would have to be dense to think looking at the building is proof of the NIST report when NIST never showed you what their mechanism would actually look like in the first place.


But before i go on, I have to say this. I've noticed that you and many of the TM supporters like to have selective amnesia when it comes to 9/11 and the events.


Are you sure you aren't talking about OS believers? Look no further than this thread for an example. The FEMA report says explicitly that the intragranular melting was involved with what destroyed the samples in appendix C, but pteridine is repeatedly ignoring that to claim it was all oxidation and sulfidation. That's even worse than "selective amnesia," that's denying what's blatantly in front of your face. You have any comment on that? Let me guess: you're going to make excuses for that too just because you both believe the OS. The thought process apparently goes feelings ---> opinions ---> "facts," instead of considering the facts first and then going from there.


For example, talking about how fires cannot bring down the Twin Towers while ignoring (forgetting) the airplane impacts.


No one is forgetting them. They only severed less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors, and 0% of the columns anywhere else. If you read the government reports yourself you'd know this. And if you knew anything about structural engineering you would know based on the redundancy and safety factors of these buildings that there is no way in hell that is going to compromise the structure alone. The fires would have had to have done almost 3x the damage of the aircraft impacts to compromise the equivalent of just 50% of the structure if they had a bare minimum FoS of 2. Yet the fires were not even comparable to many historical skyscraper fires that didn't even affect the actual steel columns, ie Meridian Plaza, First Interstate Bank, Caracas Tower, etc. etc.


Or saying how the towers were suppose to survive multiple hits and therefore should not have collapsed while ignoring the fires afterward.


You are making up your own straw-men. First of all no one is talking about this and second of all no one is ignoring the fires either. You can add them together. It doesn't make 2 + 2 magically equal 10. You still come out way too freaking short to explain the complete leveling of 2 110-story skyscrapers and another that was 47 stories.


Then we have that the steel could not have failed when there are quite a few instances where steel structures did fail from fire alone.


Never a skyscraper. Only roads and warehouse roofs. If you think those are more valid comparisons than actual buildings then you speak for yourself.


The exterior columns could not have been seriously compromised by the fires and therefore it should not have collapsed, while ignoring the floor trusses that helped pull in the exterior columns prior to collapse.


This is ignored because there is absolutely no evidence that this garbage ever happened to begin with. When you prove it, it will be considered. Until then, if you want to back a theory that has never been conclusively proven, you might as well side with demolition theory because it has more corroboration going for it than NIST's superficial assertions of a visual-match, like I said, despite their ever showing you what their mechanism would look like in the first place.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
1300 engineers have reviewed the published work and have formally agreed with the assessments published. Each of these engineers has had their credentials verified. You can see a list of most of them here:
www.patriotsquestion911.com...

There are nowhere near 1300 engineers on this list. Why must you keep lying about the number of people involved, how does that help your case?


There is no contradiction.

As each lower floor gets "hammered" by the upper pancaking floor. As Newton's laws clearly demonstrate, for each action there must be an equal but opposite reaction, causing part of the upper "pile driver" to collapse as well.

Ok, so far we have no disagreement.


This collapse of the pile driver floor is where the kinetic energy to keep the collapse sequence going comes from.

This I can also agree with, although it's stated in a roundabout manner, it allows components to descend, thereby gaining kinetic energy, so it's correct.


If the demolition engineers in the video had pushed off the second from the top floor of the building instead of the middle, the collapse would have stalled before the whole building was demolished.

This is where you make the same mistake as Chandler. If a floor is destroyed due to impact, it does not just vanish from reality. Its mass still exists, just it used up energy in fracturing or buckling. The mass will be accelerated just the same as before, and it's this that Bazant believes forms zone B, crushed and compacted debris, that somewhat protects the upper block from complete annihilation.

Of course this is in a very simple model, in reality the towers tipped enough to cover 3 floors at the same time, but we can't argue the most complex case without resorting to an in depth analysis.


ONLY if the building is collapsed in the middle, and ONLY if supports are removed at precisely the same time across the entire middle floor, and ONLY if the building is uniform in strength will total destruction of the building ensue.

Even given all of that - there will be DECELERATION as this occurs.

I'm sorry, but you have no work to actually support this, whether or not an upper block decelerates is purely down to the energy sinks available. The published work shows that there is nowhere near enough of an energy sink to account for this slowing. Heiwa has not refuted this in the least, he just claims all sorts of bizarre falsehoods, like the top part of WTC1 would undoubtedly bounce in a column to column impact.


Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're ever not arguing against me, it's not that hard to preface what you're saying with "I agree." I haven't seen where you have been trying to reach an agreement. All I've seen is you coming on here to antagonize what I say personally.

I'm not interested in your ego, and I am not coming on here to antagonize you, just to point out that you're still repeating the same falsehoods that I addressed over 10 months ago, and that you are unable to point out any progress that has been made. I'm trying to motivate you into action, but the only action appears to be complaining about the motivation



I was showing exactly what kind of comparison the Windsor Tower makes to the WTC Towers, and then you come on here acting like it is a valid comparison and the WTC Towers suffered worse fires and had a weaker structure somehow. Then you start arguing how the structures are too different to be directly compared. Well then why did you jump my case in the first place? Are you still trying to say those fires and structures are comparable or what?

They're comparable if you don't resort to simplistic analysis like 'look at this picture of a very bright fire in the dark!!!'. If you actually look at what happened in the structures you'll understand why the Windsor Tower could never fail in the same way as the WTC.


But not take into account the massive difference in the severity of the fires and the cross-sections of the steel that was failed?

If you do think those things are important, why didn't you mention them to Gen too? Like I said, you're only interested in antagonizing me.

Please tell me qualitatively the difference in severity of the fires. The cross sections of steel are somewhat important, but as none of the steel in the WTC underwent the same failure modes I elected to focus on the more important aspects.

I don't know what you mean with 'Gen', I guess I missed someone elses post being inaccurate. I can't be expected to catch everything though! If you want to highlight something someone else has said I'll comment on that too. I have nothing against you personally.


I'm not ignoring them, I'm putting them in their place. They do NOT excuse the failed steel for being much smaller and easier to heat, or the fires being much, much more severe in the Windsor Tower, yet it not being leveled anyway. That building burned for 24 hours. Yet you don't bring up ANY of these things. Your silence on THOSE factors speaks volumes to your extreme bias.

What are you talking about, I brought up the factors that allowed the building to survive. How is that being biased? pointing out why one survived and one didn't. The intensity of fires are irrelevant as long as the difference is not extreme, concrete takes a long time to fail compared to steel. Hell wood is better than steel under certain circumstances. I just like to have a 'holistic' view of the situation, rather than trying to focus on one aspect alone.


Reproduce their failure mechanism with a single truss/perimeter column set up. They already made such a model in their labs and put fire to it for their calibration of their computer simulations. Nothing even remotely resembling their hypothesis occurred. I imagine that's why they never bothered to try and test it again later. By saying this test was for calibrating their computer simulations they excused themselves from having to explain why they were unable to validate their theory, and had to resort to manipulating computer simulations instead. And then completely ignoring the other 99% of the collapses. What part of that do you think demonstrates these are competent scientists?

You just answered your own question, you seem to be projecting a hypothesis onto tests that were clearly for calibration, then complaining that NIST tells you they were for calibration. Well yes of course. Stop trying to imagine an ulterior motive that doesn't exist and all of a sudden it makes perfect sense.

So you want them to redo the same experiment but on full scale and with full heating? Is that all it would take? I remind you this belongs in the thread I created specifically for this purpose



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

So are the 1300 engineers that agree with me.

There are not 1300 engineers in ae911truth. Please do not lie about member counts.


He said 1300 engineers that agree with him, not in AE911. AE911 had 1270 last I heard. That's 30 less than 1300. You know what? I seriously doubt there are not 30 more engineers in the world who agree with them. So he is not lying. In fact if you count the number of professionals on this forum that aren't members of that group you'd already reduce that 30. LaBTop, Valhall, and Griff who used to post here are all scientists/engineers, and I know I'm leaving some people out. Griff is a structural engineer.

Do you really think every single professional that disagrees with the official story has sought out and joined this organization already? Then how do you explain the constant rise of their membership over time?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
He said 1300 engineers that agree with him, not in AE911. AE911 had 1270 last I heard. That's 30 less than 1300. You know what? I seriously doubt there are not 30 more engineers in the world who agree with them. So he is not lying. In fact if you count the number of professionals on this forum that aren't members of that group you'd already reduce that 30. LaBTop, Valhall, and Griff who used to post here are all scientists/engineers, and I know I'm leaving some people out. Griff is a structural engineer.

Do you really think every single professional that disagrees with the official story has sought out and joined this organization already? Then how do you explain the constant rise of their membership over time?

Did you read the page? Architects are not engineers, lumping everyone who's a member of ae911truth as 'engineers' is grossly distorting the truth. If you go through any of the lists on their site, they are filled with non structural / mechanical engineers. If you want to use the name of the group or the total signatories that's fine. Just don't go telling people they're all engineers, because they're not and a good quantity of the engineers are in an unrelated discipline.

Just as an aside, can you point me to papers published in well known journals from this group?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I've already debunked your utter junk science so I will not waste my time copy-pasting everything I just laid out.

However your lies about there not being 1300 certified engineers need to be addressed.

The full list of certified engineers can be found here:
www2.ae911truth.org...

Measures taken to certify:
www.ae911truth.org...

Several hundred detailed profiles of those engineers can be found here:
patriotsquestion911.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I've already debunked your utter junk science so I will not waste my time copy-pasting everything I just laid out.

You've missed a bunch of questions and you seem to think that if you damage some concrete, it vanishes from reality, so I wouldn't go crowing about your victory just yet.


However your lies about there not being 1300 certified engineers need to be addressed.

Have you actually read the page you're linking to? Just because someone else lies doesn't mean you have to repeat the lie. There are 1300 signatories including architects, psychologists, biology students. How many Mechanical, Civil, or Structural engineers are there? Not 1300 for damn sure.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're ever not arguing against me, it's not that hard to preface what you're saying with "I agree." I haven't seen where you have been trying to reach an agreement. All I've seen is you coming on here to antagonize what I say personally.

I'm not interested in your ego


It doesn't have anything to do with my ego. It has to do with you arguing with me, of course I am going to respond in the same antagonizing character. If you don't want to change the way you're engaging here then don't complain when I reflect it at you.


just to point out that you're still repeating the same falsehoods that I addressed over 10 months ago


What falsehoods are these again? Stop making cheap shots. I have been refuting your posts constantly, post after post, even pointing out your emotional outbursts for what they are, and this is one of those.


I'm trying to motivate you into action, but the only action appears to be complaining about the motivation


How's that recreation of the "drywall melted the steel" experiment going? All I see is a lot of time and energy spent bickering online with me. Pot, kettle.


They're comparable if you don't resort to simplistic analysis like 'look at this picture of a very bright fire in the dark!!!'.


So if the photos were taken during the day you think it would show the WTC fires were worse?


The simplistic analysis is yours. It goes like this: 'There was steel in the building and it all collapsed! The whole building didn't fall down because it was made out of concrete!'

You ignore the fact that no, not all the steel did collapse, the steel in question had MUCH SMALLER CROSS-SECTIONS and thus wasn't comparable to the WTC steel in the first place, you totally ignore the severity of the fires which is also incomparable, the time of burn, which is ALSO incomparable, and then you don't bother giving any more reason for why it didn't totally collapsed except that it was made out of concrete. And then you say I'm the one offering the simplistic analysis when you ignore all of this? You are embarrassing yourself.


If you actually look at what happened in the structures you'll understand why the Windsor Tower could never fail in the same way as the WTC.


If you faced the facts you might actually be able to realize that you still have no evidence that the WTC Towers collapsed from fires and planes alone in the first place, and in the second place that you are ignoring 90% of the relevant information in these comparisons. You keep downplaying the severity of the fires. You keep ignoring the differences in the steel. You are either in denial or intentionally being intellectually dishonest about these things. And again, pointing at that the Windsor Tower's core was made of reinforced concrete is totally irrelevant because the WTC Towers' cores weren't their weakness either. And their perimeter columns were much, much larger than the Windsor Towers. We can keep going over this until it sinks into your brain matter. I guess that's what it will take. I'm not going to drop this information just because you keep ignoring it. I'm going to keep bringing it up precisely because of that, until you acknowledge it.


Please tell me qualitatively the difference in severity of the fires.


The top of the Windsor Tower was fully engulfed and burned for a full 24 hours.

If you can't just LOOK at the photos and tell "qualitatively" what the difference is, you are not competent in speaking of anything else. Period.

Find the worst possible pic you can find of the WTC fires and compare it to this:



Pick any WTC fire pic you want. Do you honestly think it is equivalent to what you are looking at above? If so, like I said, you are only demonstrating your incompetence at comparing these types of things in the first place. They are obviously not equal in severity, and the difference IS extreme when you factor in the amount of time and the number of floors fully engulfed.


And be sure to find a picture of the WTC Towers that shows its perimeter columns being this small:



I guess you think that is comparable to the WTC perimeter columns too.



The cross sections of steel are somewhat important


"somewhat important," oh yeah, okay, right. I'll let the images speak for themselves. You have 4 or 5 times the amount of steel in the perimeter columns AT LEAST at the WTC towers to heat, with less fire, over less time. Yeah, that's "somewhat important."
Put yourself in my shoes. Your arguments are RIDICULOUS.


but as none of the steel in the WTC underwent the same failure modes I elected to focus on the more important aspects.


You still have no proof of what the WTC failure mechanism was. You keep falling back on nonsense that was never proven in the first place. Do you think this is a religious debate?


What are you talking about, I brought up the factors that allowed the building to survive.


Like the fact that the Windsor Tower wasn't demolished? There's one factor that allowed it to continue standing.


How is that being biased?


See my response above, since the shoe is now on the other foot, maybe now it's a little easier to see where the bias is coming into play. You are doing the same thing.


pointing out why one survived and one didn't.


Exactly, because one exploded in all directions to the ground and one didn't.


The intensity of fires are irrelevant as long as the difference is not extreme


Let me guess who gets to determine that. You?

You think the Windsor Tower fire is not an extreme difference than the WTC fires? Being fully engulfed on those floors and burning for 12 times as long? What is an extreme difference if not that?


Hell wood is better than steel under certain circumstances.


Yeah, I guess they should have built the WTC Towers out of wood. That's where they went wrong. You got me. What was I thinking?


I just like to have a 'holistic' view of the situation, rather than trying to focus on one aspect alone.


Down-playing the intensity of the fires and the cross-sections of the steel in favor some irrelevant "the core was concrete" excuse does not allow a holistic view.


You just answered your own question, you seem to be projecting a hypothesis onto tests that were clearly for calibration, then complaining that NIST tells you they were for calibration.


No, the problem is that they never tested their hypothesis, for the point of testing their hypothesis. They would have to have set up exactly what they did to calibrate their computer simulations. Why didn't they do it again to reproduce their hypothesis physically? Because they're too genius for that? Is that how your kind of "science" works? Let me guess, "yes." Sorry. Science is not based on condescension. You still have to show your work, even NIST.



So you want them to redo the same experiment but on full scale and with full heating?


Is that what I said? Is that what was necessary to calibrate their computer simulations?

Why do you think it's impossible for a single truss to be isolated and reproduce the pulling on the perimeter column? Would you like to explain the technical "reasoning" behind that one for me?

edit on 16-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join